Social Identities and Cognitive Information Processing Theory: A Qualitative Analysis

Abstract

Social identities impact the way individuals see themselves and their career options but career theories have been slow to the call in exploring how social identities interface with theoretical assumptions. The purpose of this study was to examine how social identities affect and inform specific dimensions identified by cognitive information processing (CIP) theory as being essential for effective career decision-making, that is, self-knowledge, options knowledge, decision-making process and skills, career beliefs, and overall career decision. Seventy-six students across ten sections of an undergraduate CIP-based career development course answered questions on an anonymous survey related to how their social identities impacted aspects of their career decision-making. Frequencies for social identities were calculated for each CIP dimension, and 11 categories identified for open-ended responses using the consensual qualitative research-modified approach accompanied pre-determined domains based on CIP theory. Across each component, the most common SI was age and generational differences. While students expressed the influence of social identities as occurring in each CIP dimension, statements related to the self-concept category occurred most often and were present in each domain. Our findings support previous work that the presence and impact of SIs on career decision-making components is undeniable, but also not universal. CIP theory provides a structure and avenues for discussing the role of social identities in career decision-making.

Keywords

social identities undergraduate students cognitive information processing theory qualitative career decision-making

Introduction

Knowledge about the self is a core component of career decision-making, according to multiple career theories such as RIASEC theory (Holland, 1997), career construction theory (Savickas, 2005), lifespan/lifespace (Super, 1990), social cognitive career theory (Lent, 2020), and cognitive information processing theory (Sampson et al., 2023). Self-knowledge for career decision-making has traditionally consisted of values, interests, and skills. More recently, self-knowledge may include identities across the diversity spectrum such as gender, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, age, and religious affiliation (Sampson et al., 2023).

Beyond specific identity labels, people have unique experiences that impact self and options knowledge. For example, individuals who hold identities from underrepresented groups can be impacted through marginalization and discrimination that influence perceived and real career options and employment (Diemer & Hsieh, 2008). Examples include increased harassment for women of color who identified as LGBTQ and/or religious minorities (Hollis, 2018), or negative attributions regarding individuals who identified as LGBTQ+ living with disabilities (Dispenza et al., 2019). While intersecting identities can impact a person’s career decision negatively, some positive outcomes exist, such as increased interpersonal and intrapersonal understanding in career development adaptability (Dispenza et al., 2019), or the positive role ethnicity may play for some in developing career ambitions (Abrahamsen & Drange, 2015). The desire to better understand how individual and intersecting identities may affect the career decision-making process should be a goal, as ethical standards clearly state that career practitioners “actively attempt to understand the diverse cultural backgrounds of the individuals they serve” (National Career Development, 2015, p. 1).

Social Identities and Career Decision-Making

Social identity (SI) is defined as a person’s self-concept which emerges from their acknowledgment of membership of a specific social group(s) (Gu et al., 2022). Simply put, SI is the group members conception of themself within the group (Gu et al., 2022), and includes the attribution of “value and emotional significance attached” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 251) with identifying with a specific group. SI can emerge and grow based on membership in different social groups such as race, gender, nationality, and culture (Chiu & So, 2022). Identification with and membership in these social groups can provide multiple psychological benefits such as support, personal well-being (Bentley et al., 2020), and enhanced self-esteem (Baydhowi et al., 2023). However, other research (Bastos & Harnois, 2020) has indicated that individuals who are members of multiple marginalized identities face negative outcomes such as posttraumatic stress and reporting lower quality of life.

Career literature has examined SIs such as race, gender, and sexual orientation and their relationship to specific career constructs such as career interests (e.g., Lannin et al., 2023). Ross et al. (2021) found that resiliency in engineering students who are Black women, as well as their continuance in the field, is dependent on the collaboration of race, gender, and role identity, which is supported by formal, informal, and structural educational experiences. However, while some studies have examined a few social identities through a career theory lens (e.g., Lannin et al., 2023), none have looked at how multiple identities might impact several career decision-making constructs or how. To provide an organizing structure for looking at common career constructs associated with career decision-making, we turn to cognitive information processing theory (Sampson et al., 2023) as an organizing framework as it concisely addresses many elements common to multiple career theories focused on career decision-making.

Theoretical Framework for the Present Study: Cognitive Information Processing Theory

Cognitive information processing (CIP) theory (Sampson et al., 2023) has provided 30 years of empirically-based career guidance for career decision-making and problem-solving for a variety of groups in the United States and internationally. CIP identifies four independent yet statistically correlated elements necessary for effective career decision-making: self-knowledge, options knowledge, a decision-making process, and executive processing skills, with research supporting these connections (Osborn et al., 2020; Osborn et al., 2021; Sampson et al., 2023). Diversity, and specifically, various social identities while not explicitly stated in the theory, appears to be woven into the four components, as demonstrated in the following sections.

Self-Knowledge

Self-knowledge is a foundational element of career decision-making and includes an understanding of how aspects of self (e.g., interests, skills, values, and culture) inform a career decision (Sampson et al., 2023). SIs appear to have a significant impact on individuals’ self-knowledge (Evans & Diekman, 2009; Lannin et al., 2023; Smyth et al., 2018). For example, Smyth et al. (2018) found women working agricultural jobs that are commonly associated with masculinity (i.e., farming and ranching) viewed themselves as more masculine, especially in comparison to women in traditionally feminine roles (i.e., homemaker). Some racial differences have been noted on career-related values, such as Anglo-American (this was the term used in the article) mortuary science students reporting lower creativity values, and African American students from the same major reporting higher values for advancement but lower values for social interaction and social relations compared to others (Shaw & Duys, 2005). A study on intersecting identities of Black females (Lannin et al., 2023) predicted social interests but no other Holland (1997) RIASEC interests. Subjective social class has been found to moderate between proactivity personality and entrepreneurial intention, with sex assigned at birth capturing variance in entrepreneurial intention (Zhang et al., 2023). In another example, Trauth et al. (2016) found gender-ethnic differences on stereotypes about IT skills and knowledge.

Options Knowledge

Options knowledge entails understanding information specific to the individual’s focus of interest, alternatives under consideration, as well as schema for organizing that information (Sampson et al., 2023). Construction of options knowledge is highly influenced by social, cultural, as well as political factors (Rudman & Dennhardt, 2008). Options may include occupations, jobs, education or training opportunities, caregiving or how a person might balance their time amongst these. This knowledge includes a cognitive understanding of, as well as emotional responses to, options under consideration (Sampson et al., 2023). Several studies have investigated how specific identities may influence how one sees their options or experiences the world of work. For example, studies have shown that gender differences (Rohlfing et al., 2012), gender identity (Budge et al., 2010), having a history of involvement with the law as a youth (Bartlett & Domene, 2015), and socioeconomic status (Weinger, 2000) impact perceived and real options. In addition, Karunanayake and Nauta (2004) found that college students tended to select career role models (individuals whom they emulated and consider following similar career paths as) whose racial background was the same as their own.

Career Decision-Making Process

CIP theory provides a decision-making process called the CASVE Cycle (Sampson et al., 2023). Individuals engage with the cycle cognitively and emotionally as they move towards making a career decision. Research has examined how people with specific social identities approach career decision-making. Kim and Choi (2019) found ethnic identity and curiosity were positively related to career decision self-efficacy among 425 Asian American college students. In addition, ethnic identity partially mediated the positive relationship between curiosity and career decision self-efficacy. Others (Toyokawa & DeWald, 2020) found that identifying as a first generation college student moderated the relationship between career decidedness and perceived lack of time/financial resources.

Executive Processing

The executive processing domain houses metacognitions or beliefs that govern the other elements (Sampson et al., 2023). Monitoring and controlling those beliefs and self-talk are key tasks associated with this domain. Dysfunctional cognitive processing has been linked to increased dysfunctional career thoughts and decreased engagement in exploring one’s vocational identity (Lee et al., 2020). Self-efficacy is related to executive processing, involving an individual’s capacity to exercise control, intention, adjusting to change, and their interactions (Roysum, 2020). Several studies have shown how SIs interact with executive processing. For example, career decision self-efficacy was lower for students from high socioeconomic backgrounds (Turner et al., 2019), and others (Suh et al., 2024) have found that those from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups perceived fewer career options and more career barriers compared to Caucasians. In addition, mental health concerns such as worry (Hayden & Osborn, 2020) and depression (Anghel & Gati, 2021) are also associated with negative career thoughts. Gonzalez et al. (2023) found that anxiety was a main contributor to executive professing deficits for individuals who spoke two languages. Family socioeconomic status has also been correlated with Chinese adolescents’ career ambivalence, which encompasses thoughts and feelings about career decision-making tasks (Zheng et al., 2023)

Rationale for Present Study

CIP theory acknowledges the impact diversity can have on each element of the career decision-making process (Sampson et al., 2023), and has examined career decision-making through that lens. Examples include gender (Leuty et al., 2015), LGBT (Yoon et al., 2022), race (Thrift et al., 2012), offender status (Musgrove et al., 2012), veteran status (Hayden, 2018), and disability (Osborn & Saunders, 2021). However, an in-depth exploration of how individual or multiple social identities interface with each other and pyramid components has not yet occurred and is the purpose of this manuscript. In their review of multicultural vocational research, Kantamneni and Fouad (2023) called for additional theory-driven research focused on individual and intersecting identities as well as social and environmental impacts, in order to help career practitioners understand how theory tenets are experienced by diverse populations. Thus, in answer to that call, the CIP theory-based research question guiding the present exploratory study was, “In what ways might social identities influence students’ career-related self-knowledge, options knowledge, decision-making, and executive processing?”

Methods

Participants

Seventy-six participants were recruited from ten sections over two semesters via an extra credit option for completing surveys during the first and last weeks of an undergraduate CIP-based career development course based at a predominantly White institution. Demographic information for 13 participants is missing due to those participants not filling out pre-test information before taking the survey. We chose to include their data in the analysis as our primary goal was to explore how SIs might be impacting the career decision-making process, not which demographic variable(s) matched with each statement.

Table 1 presents relevant demographic information. 38 identified as female, 23 as male, one as transgender, and one who preferred not to identify. Participant ages ranged from 17 to 29 (M = 20.32; SD = 2.18). 35 identified as White, 11 as Hispanic, seven as Black, two as Asian, and eight as mixed races. 14 were Freshmen, 12 were Sophomores, 12 were Juniors, and 25 were Seniors. The majority were female, with 24 different majors represented. Some listed more than one major, and thus the total major number exceeds the total number of participants.

Table 1.

Demographics and Sample Characteristics.

Gender	Age	Race	Major
Male (23)	17 (2)	White (15)	Sports management (5)
	18 (7)	Hispanic (5)	Finance (3)
	19 (6)	Black (2)	Political science (1)
	21 (3)	Asian (1)	Exploratory/undecided (4)
	22 (4)		History (2)
	23 (1)		Mechanical engineering (1)
			Behavioral neuroscience (1)
			Psychology (1)
			International affairs (1)
			Statistics (1)
Female (38)	18 (5)	White (19)	Sports management (2)
	19 (6)	Hispanic (6)	Finance (1)
	20 (6)	Black (4)	Exploratory/undecided (5)
	21 (9)	Asian (1)	Mechanical engineering (2)
	22 (6)	Mixed race (7)	Chemical engineering (1)
	23 (4)		Psychology (4)
	26 (1)		International affairs (3)
	29 (1)		Communication (1)
			Family and child science (1)
			Music (3)
			Education (1)
			Economics (2)
			English writing and media (1)
			Criminology (5)
			Public health (3)
			Statistics (1)
			Chemistry (1)
			Sociology (1)
Transgender/non-binary	18	Mixed race (1)	Computer science
Preferred not to answer	22	White (1)	Music

Procedures

Data collection occurred over two semesters (2022–2023). For the wave, which occurred in December 2021, 22 students completed an online questionnaire that included questions regarding their social identities and their impact on their career decision-making process as part of an extra credit option. Most had previously completed a pre-course survey about their current career decision state and related concerns on the first day of class that researchers then matched with the post survey. The second data collection (Wave 2) occurred during Spring 2022 and included 54 students who completed study questions in the pre-course survey. The University Institutional Review Board approved the use of this course for this research.

Survey Questionnaire

Instructions for the survey included, “This final set of questions asks about the social identities that are important to you for your career concern, that influence the key areas of career decision-making (i.e., self-knowledge, options knowledge, decision-making process, and your career beliefs/thoughts or how you talk to yourself about your career decision). Some identities may be more salient (or important) than others for each individual area, or they might be equally salient.” They were then asked to identify which social identity(ies) were impacting each individual area of the CIP element (i.e., self-knowledge, options knowledge, career decision-making process, and career beliefs/how they think/talk to themselves). For example, “Which of the following social identities are impacting your self-knowledge? (check all that apply).” They were provided a list of social identities, including age and generational influences, disability (e.g., physical/psychological/mental/learning), ethnicity, first language, gender identity, nationality or national origin, race, religion or spiritual affiliation, sex assigned at birth, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic class). An “other identity or identities” option in which they were prompted to provide write in options, as well as a “none of the above” option were available. They were instructed to check all that applied for them for each specific pyramid element, followed by an open-ended question to describe how their social identity(ies) were impacting that aspect of the pyramid. For example, “How do these identities intersect and influence your self-knowledge?” They were then asked the same questions for options knowledge, and so on. A final open-ended question asked, “Which social identity(s) overall has had or is having the most impact on your career decision, and in what ways?”

For Wave 2, instead of asking how identities impacted each area of the CIP pyramid, researchers chose instead to ask three questions about how social identities impacted their career decision-making and problem-solving process in general. We decided upon this approach as we were concerned about the potential of being overly directive in Wave 1 by asking participants to consider social identities as focused on each individual CIP pyramid element, potentially resulting in superficial or redundant responses due to the number of open-ended questions. The first question was, “Which of these social identities are impacting your career decision-making and problem-solving?” with the option to choose as many as were applicable, followed by having them indicate which identity had the most impact on their overall career decision-making and problem-solving process. The final question was, “How do these identities intersect and influence your career decision-making and problem-solving?”

Coding Team

The coding team for this study included one White identified female professor in a doctoral counseling psychology program with 24 years’ experience. The remaining researchers are doctoral students within the same program and included three female and two males (sex assigned at birth), ranging in ages from 25 to 27, and identifying racially as Asian, Black, and White/Latina/Hispanic. A bi-racial (White and Black) female assistant professor in the same doctoral program served as an auditor for the project providing feedback to the coding team on ways in which the categories could be reworded and potentially combined.

Discussion of Assumptions and Biases

Prior to coding, team members discussed biases and expectations related to the study. Regarding the influence of identities on self-knowledge, there was a consensus that identities may only influence self-knowledge if those identities are important to participants. Furthermore, it was anticipated that some participants would say their identities were not influential. Regarding options knowledge, there was a general expectation that some would say their identities limited possibilities, while others would mention social norms limiting career choice.

Regarding the influence of identities on career decision-making process, there was consensus that some careers might be more highly valued based on identity groups and identities that are more salient would influence decisions. In addition, there was agreement that some participants would talk about cognitive aspects, while others would talk about emotional aspects. Regarding the influence of identities on career thoughts and beliefs, there was consensus that responses would include discussion about how identities that make participants different may inspire them in their career or cause them to question their career. Furthermore, there was an expectation that marginalized identities may inspire decisions to engage in helping professions.

There was an expectation that race, gender, and social status would be some of the responses for social identities with the most impact on career decision. Team members anticipated participants would provide the following responses: the identities make the career decision-making more interesting, the identities complicate the career decision-making, the identities influence what career participants choose or do not choose, and the identities influences career changes and transitions. Finally, there was the expectation that first-generational influence and prestige would be mentioned in responses. These biases and assumptions were considered throughout the data analysis process.

Data Analysis

Frequencies of identities across CIP groups were calculated first. Next, data was analyzed using consensual qualitative research-modified (CQR-M) (Spangler et al., 2012). CQR-M is a briefer approach than consensual qualitative research (CQR) (Hill et al., 1997, 2005) and is often used with simple qualitative data with large sample sizes (>15 participants) (Spangler et al., 2012). Domains were determined apriori by our questions (i.e., CIP domains of self-knowledge, options knowledge, decision-making, metacognition, and overall career decision-making). In Step 1, the coding team members independently determined categories for each domain one at a time. In Step 2, the coding team met and reached consensus for categories within each domain, one domain at a time. In Step 3, team members independently re-categorized participants’ comments with the agreed upon categories. In Step 4, the coding team met and reached consensus for how each participant comment was categorized. The domains and categories with sample quotes are presented in Table 3.

Results

Amongst the five domains (i.e., CIP pyramid components plus overall decision-making), twelve categories of social identity influence were identified and varied in frequency occurrence across domains. The categories are identified and described by the study authors as:

Awareness: being aware of social identities influence on career decisions, but not how they specifically impact

Clarified Values: recognition of experiences within social identities developing values applied to career decisions

Developmental: recognizing social identities influence on career decisions may have changed throughout the lifespan

Discrimination: identifying anticipated or experienced unjust behaviors from others in response to one or more identities

Evaluating/narrowing options: asserting that identity can help assess desirability of options

Expectations/personal identity/family: making career-decisions to achieve goals based on perceived expectations due to family or personal values

Impact: an evaluation of the effect social identity has on various aspects of career decision-making

Mental illness affects outcome: identifying that mental illness impacts perception of social identities influence on career decisions

Not codable: lack of proper answer to the questions asked

Power/privilege: recognizing or seeking how their social position opened/closed doors of opportunity for self or others

Self-concept: the impact on the view of self, whether positive or negative, when evaluating career options and decisions

Willingness/openness to learn: aiming to make career decisions that involve learning experiences without judgement

Table 2 provides the breakdown of SI categories across domains. For Wave 1, the number of SIs identified per person ranged 0–5 (M = 2.22; SD = 1.89) for self-knowledge, 0–4 (M = 1.11; SD = 1.28) for options knowledge, 0–4 (M = 1.11; SDS = 1.45) for decision-making, and 0–5 (M = 1.33; SD = 1.57) for career beliefs/self-talk. Age/generational differences were most commonly selected as impacting the four areas of the CIP pyramid. Participants in Wave 2 identified between zero and nine (M = 2.76, SD = 2.01) social identities impacting their career decision, with age and generational differences also identified most frequently. Students in both waves selected age and generational impact as having the most impact overall. In some cases, students chose multiple identities as impacting a CIP area and then made general statements about their how SI(s) were impacting a domain such as, “They help shape my values.” In those cases, it was not possible to attribute their response to a specific social identity. In other cases, a specific identity was described as impacting a CIP domain, such as, “socioeconomic status because I want to make more money to support my family.”

Table 2.

Frequencies of Identities Impacting CIP Pyramid Components.

Identities	Self-Knowledge	Options Knowledge	Career Decision-Making Process	Career Beliefs/Thoughts or How You Talk to Yourself?	Total Identities Endorsed for SK, OK, DCM, and MK	Overall Career Decision-Making and Problem-Solving (Wave 2 Only)	Which Had the Most Impact on Career Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
Age/generational influence	10	6	6	5	27	14	10
Disability				2	2	5	8
Ethnicity	5	2	2	3	12	6	1
First language		2	1	2	5	6	2
Gender identity	3	1	3	1	8	5	5
Nationality	2		1	1	4	4	3
Race	5	1	1	3	10	4	3
Religion/spiritual affiliation	4	1	1	2	8	5	3
Sex assigned at birth	2	2	1		5	4	1
Sexual orientation	3		2	2	7	6
Socioeconomic class	6	1	2	3	12	8	12
Other		1		1	2	1

Social Identities’ Influence on Self-Knowledge

Self-knowledge, according to CIP theory, addresses the question, “Who am I?” (Sampson et al., 2023). Each social identity category we provided was indicated as impacting at least one respondent’s self-knowledge, except disability and first language. Table 3 includes sample quotes and frequencies per domains and categories. The most common statements reflected an impact of SIs on self-concept, with two clearly positive (e.g., “It strengthens things I know about myself”), one negative (i.e., “I don’t have any special qualities that make me stand out”) to neutral but acknowledging their impact (i.e., “They often interact with the ways I socialize with others”). Age/generational influence was endorsed most often, with responses suggesting a connection between students’ age and expectations of certain career outcomes (i.e., educational status and career success relative to parent’s generation). Other comments suggested socioeconomic class may have influenced respondents’ perceptions of what career decisions may be most advantageous for upward social mobility.

Table 3.

Sample Quotes and Frequencies per Category and Domains.

Domain/Category	Sample Quote	Frequencies
Self-knowledge
Self-concept	I feel pretty good with who I am	6
Impact	They don’t	5
Discrimination	These are all of the areas in life that allow discrimination into my life. Because of this, my self-knowledge may be skewed	3
Power/privilege	Where I come from and what I look like give me privilege, therefore affecting my self-knowledge	2
Expectations/personal identity/family	As a young adult, there are all kinds of generational influences as things are changing around us every day. I also come from a lower socioeconomic class so I cannot entirely afford the education I need for my career, but it is really expected of me to get it so I can do better than my parents	2
Clarified values	They influence my values	2
Not coded/other	Different areas in my life	2
Options knowledge
Impact	They don’t	9
Awareness	Understanding certain things	6
Discrimination	I don’t think it’s as common for someone like me to make it as far as I want to go	2
Self-concept/self-knowledge	I feel comfortable with my identity	2
Openness/willingness to learn and evaluate about options	I am still young and there is always more to learn	2
Not coded	x	1
Decision-making
Impact	N/A	8
Not coded	This class has helped me greatly with my career decision-making process	4
Self-concept	I feel more comfortable with who I am	3
Evaluating and narrowing options	Choosing right company	2
Discrimination/power and privilege	Who is allowed to do what	2
Expectation	Having people in my family in certain fields have an influence on my decision-making	2
Executive processing
Impact	They do not intersect	6
Self-concept	I am pretty good with positive self-talk	4
Mental illness affects outlook	Mental illness warps thoughts negatively	3
Not coded	I am not sure	3
Expectations	Cultural difference between me and my parents	2
Power and privilege	I cannot entirely afford the education I would like to make it to my career	2
Developmental	I’ve learned more as I’ve grown up	2
Most influential identity’s impact (Wave 1)
Not coded	Age and race	7
Impact	None	4
Clarified values	My socioeconomic class influences what I study because I am expected to make a lot of money	3
Discrimination	How females are treated	2
Developmental	Maturing	2
Power and privilege	I think socioeconomic status from the previously mentioned reason	1
Mental illness affects outlook	My mental health causes me to put a lot of pressure on myself and put myself down which affects my decision-making	1
Overall influence (Wave 2)
Impact	They don’t	23
Power and privilege	It makes me feel that I cannot achieve outside my socioeconomic bracket.	11
Values	I want to choose a career that places me in a certain financial class	6
Self-concept	They make it difficult for me to know myself accurately	4
Not coded	Good idea	4
Mental illness affects outlook	Anxiety makes it difficult for me to be confident in my choice	3

Notable overlap was seen at the intersections of age/generational influence, socioeconomic status, and race. A sample quote which highlights this is as follows:

“As a young adult, there are all kinds of generational influences as things are changing around us every day. I also come from a lower socioeconomic class so I cannot entirely afford the education I need for my career, but it is really expected of me to get it so I can do better than my parents.”

This quote expresses the nuanced intersection of multiple social identities and how they can interact to influence a perception of self in connection with salient career decisions they may perceive as in line with their amalgamated social identity. In addition to pointing to internal impacts, this quote also highlights complexities that emerge when forces outside of their control such as others’ expectations and societal changes interface with perceptions of self.

Social Identities’ Influence on Options Knowledge

Options knowledge addresses the application of information about career-related options to a person’s career decision (Sampson et al., 2023). While the most common category indicated that SIs did not impact options knowledge (N = 9), the rest (N = 13) indicated that SIs were impacting in various ways. All the SI categories we provided were selected as impacting at least one respondent’s options knowledge, with the exception of disability, nationality, and sexual orientation. Age/Generational Influence was endorsed by most participants (N = 6), and responses related to options knowledge suggested an awareness of their youth and lack of experience (See Table 3). Two believed that SIs increased their awareness by “helping them understand certain things.” Two statements stood out that had a more negative connotation:

“I don’t think it’s as common for someone like me to make it as far as I want to go” and “A lot of those [people] in my field do not match my gender, race or age. This may affect my options in the future.”

These statements imply how perceived discrimination is experienced by participants holding marginalized identities and speak to the value of seeing people who “are like me” in different positions. Positive responses included participants’ comfort with their SIs, their willingness to learn more about their options, and the belief that they will be able to get many jobs.

Social Identities’ Influence on Career Decision-Making Process (i.e., CASVE Cycle)

As with the other CIP domains, the most frequent response to the career decision-making process was age and generational influence. Overall, most reported there was no impact, although they did report impacts on self and options knowledge, two key aspects of decision-making according to CIP theory (Sampson et al., 2023). The only identity not endorsed was disability. Three participants noted feelings of comfortability within their decision-making process (See Table 3), with phrases such as “I feel more comfortable with who I am.”

Social Identities’ Influence on Career Thoughts and Beliefs

The executive processing domain addresses how one thinks about their career decision-making process and consists of metacognitions that include strategies for managing tasks associated with the process (Sampson et al., 2023). These strategies involve being aware of, monitoring and controlling self-talk that can impede the CDM process. Five categories (aside from impact and not coded) emerged with 13 specific comments coded (See Table 3). Age and generational influence were the SIs most participants (N = 5) endorsed as impacting their career thought and beliefs most significantly. Some reflections included feeling inexperienced or “entry level” in the work force as well as identifying how “growing up” and “family” impacted their thoughts and beliefs. Socioeconomic class, race, and ethnicity were the second most common identities indicated by participants. Some comments regarding socioeconomic class included expectations of maintaining the status of the economic class they grew up in or perceptions of narrowed opportunities due to their social class. Some responses regarding race and ethnicity included beliefs about how participants “look” influencing where they are “placed.” Still others expressed how their mental health was impacting their career beliefs.

Social Identities’ Overall Influence

The social identities most frequently reported for impacting individual’s overall career decision-making and problem-solving were age/generational influence and socioeconomic status. Sample comments about age/generational influence included:

“Wisdom passed down from older generations has given good advice and clarity to me” and “I want to be able to make my family proud as a first-generation student and reach for the stars.”

Socioeconomic Class Had the Second Highest Frequency, with Comments Such as:

“It makes me feel that I cannot achieve outside my socioeconomic bracket” and “Growing up in a low socioeconomic class, it was not expected that I would pursue certain occupations because of the cost associated with them. For example, becoming a medical doctor.”

Our last question examined SIs’ overall influence on career decision-making and problem-solving, with impact (N = 23) and power and privilege (N = 11) categories receiving the most statements. We checked the SIs of those who were indicating “no impact” to see if there were commonalities across those individuals’ identities, and there were not. Students indicating “no impact” represented various gender and racial identities. Statements about power and privilege discussed either limitations due to their lower socioeconomic class or increased opportunities due to their privilege. One participant discussed needing a career that can pay for medical treatment of their disability, another discussed the limitations of being an international student, and a third discussed receiving good advice from older generations. These examples show how there might be positive and negative impacts experienced from one’s social identities.

Discussion

The main question guiding this research was, “In what ways might social identities influence students’ career-related self-knowledge, options knowledge, decision-making, and executive processing?” Students reported that various SIs influenced each component of career decision-making (Sampson et al., 2023), as well as their overall career decision-making. Our results echo findings from previously described articles of the influence of specific SIs on specific career decision-making constructs, such as how race is related to career interests (Lannin et al., 2023), how social and cultural influences affect options under consideration (Wijekoon & Peter, 2023), how sexual identity can influence career decision-making (Jang et al., 2021a), and how mental health is related to negative career thoughts (Hayden & Osborn, 2020).

We saw some overlapping of categories (e.g., discrimination) across domains, which enhances understanding of prior research (Hayden & Osborn, 2020; Osborn et al., 2020, 2021) that showed inter-relatedness of CIP components. Thus, if a person expresses the impact of a specific identity in one CIP area, it is likely that this impact extends to the other CIP areas. Prior research seems to suggest this, albeit not in CIP theoretical terms. For example, in a study of 26 female immigrants, Roysum (2020) found that low job search self-efficacy (executive processing) negatively impacted perceived options (options knowledge) and a “downgraded” (p. 179) perception of competence and value of their educational background (self-knowledge).

The self-knowledge domain had the most total categories identified for any domain (N = 22), suggesting this is the area in which SIs play the largest role. Prior research (Evans & Diekman, 2009; Karunanayake & Nauta, 2004) supports this idea, in which SIs significantly impacted participants’ values, interests, skills, and employment/career preference.

Many participants believed their SIs did not impact their options knowledge and career decision-making. Prior research contrasts this finding, with Rudman and Dennhardt (2008) purporting that knowledge about one’s career options is closely linked to social and cultural factors, which also include SES and history of being involved with law or law enforcement (Bartlett & Domene, 2015). In Wave 2, however, when asked about how their SIs impacted their overall career decision-making, several students described challenges they faced as they engaged in the career decision-making process coming from a background of poverty or being in a lower socioeconomic class, a concern previously found in Weinger's (2000) study.

It is also possible that the lack of responses may be related to the individual’s comfort with themselves and their identities. For example, Jang and colleagues (2021b) found that while there was no significant direct effect between LGB identity development and career decision-making self-efficacy, there were significant indirect effects when self-compassion and perceived social support acted as mediators. Higher levels of self-compassion and perceived social support were related to a positive indirect effect between LGB identity development and career decision-making self-efficacy. Within the current study, students’ comfort with their identities may positively impact their overall career decision-making. That individuals indicated multiple identities as impacting their career decision-making process but did not offer explanations as to how they were impacting is confusing. It could be that they felt they had already addressed the question in their responses to the two previous open-ended questions. It could also be that asking them to comment on how one or more identities impacted their decision-making involved a complex, multi-step process that was too complicated.

With respect to the executive processing domain, the “weight” of some participants’ statements is different from statements we saw in other categories. For example, “Suffering from depression negatively affects the way I speak to myself” or “They all make up me and I carry that into the spaces I enter.” Career scholars have increasingly found relationships among mental health concerns such as worry (Hayden & Osborn, 2020), depression (Walker & Peterson, 2012), and anxiety (Xiao et al., 2014), and career thoughts.

Categories and statements participants reported in the executive processing domain were reflected in prior research. For example, the identity most endorsed by participants involved how family impacted their career thoughts. Koçak et al. (2021) similarly found that family and generational characteristics can impact career thoughts in positive ways depending on an individuals perceived support. While outside influence can be positive, CIP theory identifies external conflict as difficulties that arise when important others’ real or perceived opinions contradict with the client’s own career-related opinions (Sampson et al., 2023). Additionally, intersectionality between ethnicity, family, and SES, particularly feelings of overachieving immigrant parents SES was endorsed by participants, similar to other studies (Koçak et al., 2021). Suh et al.’s (2024) findings were reflected by participants stating feelings about jobs where they did not feel represented appeared out of bounds.

Age and generational differences were endorsed as the most common social identity across the domains. Comments about age/generational influence suggested that students see previous generations as affecting their current way of living (e.g., values from previous generations in family, financial stability or wealth achieved by previous generations in family, and achievements in certain career fields by previous generations in family). Family factors (i.e., family of origin socioeconomic status, family support, and family interactions) have been found to play a role, either directly, or indirectly, in career outcome expectations and career decision self-efficacy (Metheny & McWhirter, 2013).

Impact on self-concept was the only category that was consistently identified as being a way in which students’ social identities influenced each of the five domains, aside from the not coded and “impact” categories. Prior research has found an individual’s SI (race, ethnicity, gender, etc.) to affect their self-concept (Evans & Diekman, 2009; Smyth et al., 2018), as well as career paths they may view as salient to their own identities (Karunanayake & Nauta, 2004).

Implications

Theoretical Implications

The results of this study can provide valuable insights to enrich the four CIP components and the CASVE Cycle (Sampson et al., 2023). Our findings show students exhibit varying degrees of identification with SIs across each domain, ranging from zero to several identities. This suggests that while SIs are salient for some students in relation to their career decision, they may not be as relevant for others. What remains to be seen is if and how saliency of a given SI changes over time with respect to career decisions. Moreover, we identified specific identities that impact each CIP component, highlighting the need for further research to explore how these unique identities develop over time and impact the four components individually and/or interactively. This finding aligns with one of the hypotheses proposed by CIP theorists, namely that experiences related to social identities, such as discrimination or poverty, would affect the various pyramid components (Sampson et al., 2023). The endorsement of age/generational influence suggests two possible implications for CIP theory. First, CIP theory needs to explore how CIP components, the CASVE cycle, and the career readiness model differ across the lifespan. Second, some participants’ comments suggest a need for further exploration of “external conflict,” a specific type of negative thinking identified by CIP theory which focuses on how messages from important relationships impact the career decision-making process.

Self-concept was an expressed category across all CIP components. This finding is important as previous research (Osborn et al., 2020, 2021) has demonstrated inter-relatedness among pyramid components. By extension, the impact of SI in one area of the pyramid might impact other areas. For example, a person who internalizes an external message that a certain career field is not for them, is likely to have their self-knowledge also impacted by that statement, as well as how they view their options, and may factor into their decision-making process. In addition, because SIs include both internal (how I see myself) and external (how others view/treat me) aspects, future CIP-related research should investigate how social identities can influence the complexity and capability associated with career decision-making readiness (Sampson et al., 2023).

Other categories and comments were reflective of the valuing phase of the CASVE Cycle (Sampson et al., 2023), when individuals consider the costs and benefits of each option for themselves, their significant others, family, and their social group. Responses highlighted areas on the minds of these students as they engage in career decision-making, such as the consideration of money, family, where they might want to work, and choosing the “right” company. Regarding familial influence, the current study’s results are consistent with previous literature such as Lease’s 2004 study, which found external influences played a key role in the individual’s career decision-making in students regardless of race. By continuing to examine the impact of SIs on career decision-making components and process, we can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges that individuals with different SIs may face in making career decisions and identify ways to support them in this process.

Career Practice Implications

The majority of students identified at least one, and in many cases, more than one, SI as impacting the various aspects of the pyramid and their overall career decision-making process. Still, several indicated that SIs did not have any impact. In reviewing the databases of responses, there did not appear to be any demographic commonalities among those who indicated that there was no impact as compared to those who indicated one or more. For example, there were students who identified as White males who said there was no impact, and there were also Black females who indicated the same—and individuals from both of these groups also identified impacts. Thus, because the impact of SIs was identified by members of all groups as having and not having an impact, and because there is no way for a career practitioner to know how or when an SI is important for a career decision-maker, they should ask clients about whether social identities are impacting the various aspects of their career decision-making, and if so, how.

The findings from our study provide potential guides for discussion. What someone indicates on an intake form as certain identities (e.g., race, gender, and disability) does not provide the full picture of how those identities are experienced by the individual with respect to their career decision. The American Psychological Association (APA, 2017) encourage practitioners to discuss the interaction between identity and self-definition, seeking to understand the person’s social contexts. In the case of career decision-making, this may mean looking at occupational environments that may not have visible representation of one or more of the client’s identities, as well as familial or other group’s reactions to their consideration of a specific career option.

APA guidelines also suggest exploring the connection between developmental stages, identity evolution, and life transitions (such as making a career decision), which seem particularly relevant given our finding of age/generational differences being the most often cited identity impacting career decision-making aspects. Thus, a career practitioner should consider where the client is developmentally, for example, are they in an exploration or establishment stage of career development (Super, 1990), and how does their location in that stage impact how they understand their self and options knowledge? This suggestion is in line with NCDA’s 2015 ethical code (A2c), “Career professionals communicate information in ways that are both developmentally and culturally appropriate” (p. 4).

Limitations and Future Research

This study provides valuable insights into the influence of social identities on career decision-making within a racially and ethnically diverse sample. However, there are some limitations due to the study’s restricted population (i.e., undergraduate students in a career development course at a predominately White institution). Also, the researchers involved in this study were diverse across various social identities, but not all identities were represented within the group, potentially influencing the list of identities provided, questions asked, and interpretation of results. Many participants reported that perceived discrimination and power/privilege impacted their career decision-making. Future research could explore how discrimination affects individuals in their prospective fields, providing career psychologists and counselors with more information on how to combat negative career perceptions. We also acknowledge the likely presence of researcher bias, and although attempts were made to minimize its impact, a different set of researchers might have different conclusions. Using one specific theory to frame the questions may have impacted the information we received. Had we based questions on a different theory, we likely we have received valuable information from that perspective, such as how SIs influence a person to circumscribe or compromise their career options. Future research might fill in this gap by asking SI-related questions specific to a different theory. Future research might also focus more on an individual identity that has not yet been examined with great depth (e.g., religion/spiritual affiliation), how that SI develops and expresses itself in different arenas of a person’s life, and its potential for positive and negative impacts across the lifespan with respect to career problem-solving and decision-making. Qualitative studies could explore how specific identities impact various components of career decision-making, providing a more detailed understanding of their influence.

Conclusion

We set out to explore how individuals’ various social identities impact aspects of career decision-making. We found that students endorsed the impact of different identities, often more than one, on components of career decision-making as identified by CIP theory, and the results provide some understanding as to how these identities are affecting students’ career decision-making. The results provide support for career practitioners exploring the salience of social identities for a student who is making a career decision and can further support the multitude of narratives that students from diverse backgrounds may have when making career decisions.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Debra S. Osborn

Laura R. Marks

Author Biographies

Dr. Deb Osborn is a full professor at Florida State University. She is a 3-time graduate of FSU, with her doctoral degree in the APA-Accredited Combined Doctoral Program in Counseling Psychology & School Psychology. Her research interests involve identifying predictors of and best practices for increasing positive and decreasing negative career outcomes; applying Cognitive Information Processing theory in research and practice; designing and using assessments in career services; and exploring technology’s role in enhancing and extending services. For fun, Deb enjoys spending time with family, quilting, and cats.

Sabrina Quiroga is a doctoral student in the Counseling and School Psychology program at Florida State University. She works as a Career Advisor at the FSU Career Center. Her research interests include the intersectionality of mental health and goal-oriented thoughts in underrepresented populations such as Latino adolescents. She enjoys traveling, meeting people, and spending time with her pets, friends, and family.

Edwin Tang obtained his Master of Counseling from Arizona State University and his Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is currently a doctoral student in the combined Counseling Psychology and School Psychology program at Florida State University, and he conducts ADHD and learning disorder assessments at the Adult Learning Evaluation Center. His research interests include suicide prevention and the mental health of Asian Americans. In his free time, Edwin enjoys reading novels and playing video games.

Lyds Sherman is a third-year doctoral counseling and school psychology student at Florida State University. He received a M.S. in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at Georgia State University and a B.S. in Psychology at Loyola University Chicago. His research interest includes LGBTQ+ community particularly surrounding transgender individuals, and intersectionality. The aim of the research is to promote social justice and mental health awareness for those within marginalized demographics. His dissertation is looking at how political policies impact transgender adults’ access to healthcare and experience of gender euphoria. In his spare time he enjoys creating in art, listening to music, and going on walks.

Nicholas Reese is a third-year Doctoral student in the APA-Accredited Combined Doctoral Program in Counseling Psychology & School Psychology at Florida State University. He received his MA in Counseling Psychology from Western Michigan University. He currently serves as the lab coordinator of the Global Research On Working To ameliorate Health disparities research lab (G.R.O.W.T.H.). His current research interest is the impact of racial discrimination on behavioral health outcome disparities negatively affecting African Americans, namely anxiety and substance abuse. In his spare time, he enjoys reading, exercising, and spending time with friends and family.

Khyati Verma is a doctoral student in the combined Counseling and School Psychology program at Florida State University. She received her master’s degree in Developmental Psychology from Illinois State University. Her research interests include exploring the impact of racial and gendered racial microaggressions on mental health. In her spare time she likes to work out and paint.

Dr. Laura Reid Marks is a tenure-track assistant professor at Florida State University. She graduated with her doctoral degree in counseling psychology from Purdue University in 2015. Her research is focused on two primary strands: (a) health disparities in people of color (microaggressions, mental health, and health behaviors) and the development of culturally tailored interventions, and (b) career and professional development issues. She has a particular interest in the experiences of Black and multi-racial people. She is director of the Global Research On Working To ameliorate Health and career disparities (G.R.O.W.T.H.) Research Lab. She is originally from Kingston, Jamaica, and enjoys watching television and spending time with her husband and son.

References

Abrahamsen

Drange

(2015). Ethnic minority students’ career expectations in prospective professions: Navigating between ambitions and discrimination. Sociology, 49(2), 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514542494

American Psychological Association . (2017). Multicultural guidelines: An ecological approach to context, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf

Anghel

Gati

(2021). The associations between career decision-making difficulties and negative emotional states. Journal of Career Development, 48(4), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319884119

Bartlett

Domene

J. F.

(2015). The vocational goals and career development of criminally involved youth: Experiences that help and hinder. Journal of Career Development, 42(3), 229–243. https://doi-org/10.1177/0894845314547269

Bastos

J. L.

Harnois

C. E.

(2020). Does the everyday discrimination scale generate meaningful cross-group estimates? A psychometric evaluation. Social Science & Medicine, 265(Suppl. 2), 113321. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.socscimed.2020.113321

Baydhowi

Purwono

Prathama Siswadi

A. G.

Ali

M. M.

Syahputra

Iskandar

T. Z.

(2023). Perception of threat and national identity: Investigation of the mediating role of collective self esteem. Heliyon, 9(6), Article E17207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17207

Bentley

S. V.

Greenaway

K. H.

Haslam

S. A.

Cruwys

Steffens

N.K.

Haslam

Cull

(2020). Social identity mapping online. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(2), 213–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000174

Budge

S. L.

Tebbe

E. N.

Howard

K. A. S.

(2010). The work experiences of transgender individuals: Negotiating the transition and career decision-making processes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(4), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020472

Chiu

S. W. K.

W. W. M.

(2022). STEM career aspiration: Does students’ social identity matter? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2022.2108758

10.

Diemer

M. A.

Hsieh

C.-a.

(2008). Sociopolitical development and vocational expectations among lower socioeconomic status adolescents of color. The Career Development Quarterly, 56(3), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2008.tb00040.x

11.

Dispenza

Brennaman

Harper

L. S.

Harrigan

M. A.

Chastain

T. E.

Procter

J. E.

(2019). Career development of sexual and gender minority persons living with disabilities. The Counseling Psychologist, 47(1), 98–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018819425

12.

Evans

C. D.

Diekman

A. B.

(2009). On motivated role selection: Gender beliefs, distant goals, and career interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01493.x

13.

Gonzalez

Alfonso

Cerny

B. M.

Basurto

K. S.

Finley

J.-C. A.

Ovsiew

G. P.

Yin Tse

P. K.

Resch

Z. J.

Jennette

K. J.

Soble

J. R.

(2023). 10 performance between bilinguals and monolinguals: anxiety as A moderating effect across executive functioning and processing speed in A multicultural cohort with ADHD symptoms. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 29(S1), 425–426. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617723005611

14.

Cheng

Zhang

Wang

(2022). Formation mechanism of contributors’ self-identity based on social identity in online knowledge communities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1046525. https://doi.org/10.3389/Fpsyg.2022.1046525

15.

Hayden

S. C.

(2018). Supporting veterans experiencing homelessness through a theoretically based career development group. Journal of Military and Government Counseling, 6(4), 215–225. https://mgcaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/JMGC-Vol-6-Is-4.pdf#page=5

16.

Hayden

S. C.

Osborn

D. S.

(2020). Impact of worry on career thoughts, career decision state, and cognitive information processing skills. Journal of Employment Counseling, 57(4), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/joec.12152

17.

Hill

C. E.

Knox

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

Hess

S. A.

Ladany

(2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196

18.

Hill

C. E.

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

(1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000097254001

19.

Holland

J. L.

(1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. PAR.

20.

Hollis

L. P.

(2018). Bullied out of position: Black women’s complex intersectionality, workplace bullying, and resulting career disruption. Journal Of Black Sexuality and Relationships, 4(3), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/Bsr.2018.0004

21.

Jang

Clark

Walker

T. L.

(2021a). Positive identity and career decision-making self-efficacy: Implications for pansexual, asexual, demisexual, and queer college students. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 15(4), 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2021.1938335

22.

Jang

Smith

C. K.

Duys

D. K.

(2021b). LGB identity and career decision-making self-efficacy among sexual minority college students. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 21(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-020-09428-1

23.

Kantamneni

Fouad

N. A.

(2023). Multicultural vocational research: Critique and call to action. Journal of Career Assessment, 31(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727221084002

24.

Karunanayake

Nauta

M. M.

(2004). The relationship between race and students’ identified career role models and perceived role model influence. The Career Development Quarterly, 52(3), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2004.tb00644.x

25.

Kim

Y. H.

Choi

N.-Y.

(2019). Career decision self-efficacy of Asian American students: The role of curiosity and ethnic identity. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12161

26.

Koçak

Erdem

S. S.

Sinan

Younis

M. Z.

Erdoğan

(2021). The role of family influence and academic satisfaction on career decision-making self-efficacy and happiness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5919. https://doi.org/10.3390/Ijerph18115919

27.

Lannin

D. G.

Kanter

J. B.

Lewis

Greer

Ludwikowski

W. M. A.

(2023). Examining links between black women’s intersectional identities and career interests. Journal of Career Development, 50(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211069600

28.

Lee

Song

Rhee

(2020). Cognitive processes and their associations with vocational identity development during emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 8(6), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818804681

29.

Lent

R. W.

(2020). Career development and counseling: A social cognitive framework. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theories and research to work (pp. 129–164). Wiley & Sons, Inc.

30.

Leuty

M. E.

Bullock-Yowell

Womack

Schmidtman

Paulson

Andrews Wiebusch

Osborne

L. K.

(2015). The integration of science and practice in one training program: Outcomes of a manualized career counseling group. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 28(3), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2015.1053432

31.

Metheny

McWhirter

E. H.

(2013). Contributions of social status and family support to college students’ career decision self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(3), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072712475164

32.

Musgrove

K. R.

Derzis

N. C.

Shippen

M. E.

Brigman

H. E.

(2012). Pirates: A program for offenders transitioning into the world of work. Journal of Correctional Education, 63(2), 37–48. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/pirates-program-offenders-transitioning-into/docview/1115591551/se-2

33.

Osborn

Saunders

D. E.

(2021). Cognitive information processing theory. In Ross Strauser

(Ed.), Career development, employment, and disability in rehabilitation: From theory to practice (pp. 103–114). Springer.

34.

National Career Development

Association.

(2015). NCDA code of ethics . https://www.ncda.org/aws/NCDA/asset_manager/get_file/3395

35.

Osborn

Sides

R. D.

Brown

C. B.

(2020). Comparing career development outcomes for undergraduate CIP-based courses versus human relations courses. Career Development Quarterly, 68, 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12211

36.

Osborn

D. S.

Brown

C. A.

Morgan

M. J.

(2021). Expectations, experiences, and career‐related outcomes of computer‐assisted career guidance systems. Journal of Employment Counseling, 58(2), 74–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/Joec.12158

37.

Rohlfing

J. E.

Nota

Ferrari

Soresi

Tracey

T. J.

(2012). Relation of occupational knowledge to career interests and competence perceptions in Italian children. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(3), 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.08.001

38.

Ross

M. S.

Huff

J. L.

Godwin

(2021). Resilient engineering identity development critical to prolonged engagement of Black women in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/Jee.20374

39.

Roysum

(2020). The job-seeking experiences of resourceful female immigrants and the impact on their self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Social Work, 23(1), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1476328

40.

Rudman

D. L.

Dennhardt

(2008). Shaping knowledge regarding occupation: Examining the cultural underpinnings of the evolving concept of occupational identity. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 55(3), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00715.x

41.

Sampson

J. P.

Lenz

J. G.

Bullock-Yowell

Osborn

D. S.

Hayden

S. C. W.

(Eds.), (2023). Cognitive information processing: Career theory, research, and practice. Florida State Open Publishing. https://doi.org/10.33009/fsop_sampson1123

42.

Savickas

M. L.

(2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42–70). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000105-004

43.

Shaw

Duys

D. K.

(2005). Work values of mortuary science students. The Career Development Quarterly, 53(4), 348–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00665.x

44.

Smyth

J. D.

Swendener

Kazyak

(2018). Women’s work? The relationship between farmwork and gender self‐perception. Rural Sociology, 83(3), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12207

45.

Spangler

P. T.

Liu

Hill

C. E.

(2012). Consensual qualitative research for simple qualitative data: An introduction to CQR-M. In Hill

C. E.

(Ed.), Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena (pp. 269–283). American Psychological Association.

46.

Suh

H. N.

Flores

L. Y.

Johanson-Murray

Park

Lee

F. Y.

(2024). Invisibility and negative career outcome expectations among racially and ethnically diverse college students at a predominantly White institution. Journal of Career Assessment, 32(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727231173729

47.

Super

D. E.

(1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In Brown

Brooks

Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). Jossey-Bass.

48.

Tajfel

(1978). The achievement of inter-group differentiation. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 77–100). Academic Press.

49.

Thrift

M. M.

Ulloa-Heath

Reardon

R. C.

Peterson

G. W.

(2012). Career interventions and the career thoughts of pacific island college students. Journal of Counseling and Development, 90(2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1556-6676.2012.00022.X

50.

Toyokawa

DeWald

(2020). Perceived career barriers and career decidedness of first-generation college students. The Career Development Quarterly, 68(4), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12240

51.

Trauth

E. M.

Cain

C. C.

Joshi

K. D.

Kvasny

Booth

K. M.

(2016). The influence of gender-ethnic intersectionality on gender stereotypes about IT skills and knowledge. ACM SIGMIS - Data Base: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 47(3), 9–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2980783.2980785

52.

Turner

S. L.

Joeng

J. R.

Sims

M. D.

Dade

S. N.

Reid

M. F.

(2019). SES, gender, and stem career interests, goals, and actions: A test of scct. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(1), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717748665

53.

Walker

J. V.

III Peterson

G. W.

(2012). Career thoughts, indecision, and depression: Implications for mental health assessment in career counseling. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(4), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072712450010

54.

Weinger

(2000). Opportunities for career success: Views of poor and middle-class children. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(1), 13–35. https://doi-org/10.1016/S0190-7409(99)00071-7

55.

Wijekoon

Peter

(2023). Examining racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity in occupational science research: Perspectives of persons of color. Journal of Occupational Science, 30(3), 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2022.2119269

56.

Xiao

Zhou

Zhang

Miao

Zhang

Peng

(2014). Effects of person-vocation fit and core self-evaluation on career commitment of medical university students: The mediator roles of anxiety and career satisfaction. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 8(1), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-8-8

57.

Yoon

Morgan

May

(2022). Preparing LGBTQ+ students for postsecondary transitions through career development. In Hines

E. M.

Owen

(Eds.), Equity-based career development and postsecondary transitions: An American imperative. Information Age Publishing, Inc.

58.

Zheng

Meng

Wang

Liang

Nie

Jiang

Cao

Zhou

(2023). Adolescents’ family socioeconomic status, teacher–student interactions, and career ambivalence/adaptability: A three-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Career Development, 50(2), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453221100549